These women are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but I watched the vid and could barely make out what they were saying besides hearing the word "b!tch" being yelled over and over. Are you sure it was a hate crime?

At 4/24/2011 1:22:18 AM, MarquisX wrote:These women are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but I watched the vid and could barely make out what they were saying besides hearing the word "b!tch" being yelled over and over. Are you sure it was a hate crime?

Yes it was a hate crime. They were clearly beating her up for being a transgendered person.

At 4/24/2011 1:22:18 AM, MarquisX wrote:These women are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but I watched the vid and could barely make out what they were saying besides hearing the word "b!tch" being yelled over and over. Are you sure it was a hate crime?

Yes it was a hate crime. They were clearly beating her up for being a transgendered person.

What facts lead one to this impression anyway, as opposed to a racist motivation, or a disagreement over which burger is best?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 4/24/2011 1:22:18 AM, MarquisX wrote:These women are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but I watched the vid and could barely make out what they were saying besides hearing the word "b!tch" being yelled over and over. Are you sure it was a hate crime?

Yes it was a hate crime. They were clearly beating her up for being a transgendered person.

Really? How do you know though? The comments on the site say it was because she was white? We can't assume every crime is a hate crime. If I smack a white guy in the face and he proceeds to kick my @ss, is that a hate crime?

Really? How do you know though? The comments on the site say it was because she was white? We can't assume every crime is a hate crime. If I smack a white guy in the face and he proceeds to kick my @ss, is that a hate crime?

If you're beating them up on the sole basis that they're white, then yes. This is a similar situation. The person was being beat up due to her sexual orientation. It's only a hate crime if it's committed intentionally due to the person's orientation, race, religion, etc.

The criminals should definitely get punished for this - and be ashamed of themselves on top of that. Doesn't matter if it's a hate crime. Clearly beating up any blameless person for no proper reason is monstrous.

At 4/24/2011 12:34:27 PM, Mirza wrote:The criminals should definitely get punished for this - and be ashamed of themselves on top of that. Doesn't matter if it's a hate crime. Clearly beating up any blameless person for no proper reason is monstrous. Also, that "woman" should be properly stoned to death for being transgendered.

At 4/24/2011 1:12:40 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:What are your thoughts on this? http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... (I apologize if there has already been a thread about this, but I haven't really been that active, hehe).

How should hate crimes like this be punished?

It's just sad that no one even did anything to stop it other than the manager shouting stop and that was quite ineffective.Makes me angry.

And judging by the vid there was a number of employees just standing there. And even worse they were laughing at one point.

And she even had a seizure at the end!

Huh. It's actually possible I've been in that mcdonalds as I live in Baltimore.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

Do you or do you not think that transgendered people should be executed?

I never said they should be executed. I don't know where you got that from.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc... Depending on the homosexual act, it's all punished by different degrees of severity. Putting that aside though, I'm not sure why he's trying to provoke you.

Because Mirza's a giant hypocrite. He claims to be appalled when a couple of hoodlums beat up a transsexual, yet all they did, basically, was administer a healthy dose of good ol' fashioned Shari'a justice. Gimme a break.

Do you or do you not think that transgendered people should be executed?

I never said they should be executed. I don't know where you got that from.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc... Depending on the homosexual act, it's all punished by different degrees of severity. Putting that aside though, I'm not sure why he's trying to provoke you.

Because Mirza's a giant hypocrite. He claims to be appalled when a couple of hoodlums beat up a transsexual, yet all they did, basically, was administer a healthy dose of good ol' fashioned Shari'a justice. Gimme a break.

At 4/24/2011 1:22:18 AM, MarquisX wrote:These women are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but I watched the vid and could barely make out what they were saying besides hearing the word "b!tch" being yelled over and over. Are you sure it was a hate crime?

Yes it was a hate crime. They were clearly beating her up for being a transgendered person.:

According to Banker a few days ago, this was racially motivated, even though there is no insinuation of it. I'm also skeptical that it was because she's transgendered. I'm not saying it wasn't, but what evidence is there to suggest that it's because she's transgendered?

I don't agree with Hate Crime laws because they tend to overshadow the actual crime. For instance, suppose there was no motive beyond wanting to beat somebody up. Would that make their heinous actions less atrocious if there was no civil right motive behind it? Certainly not. Nearly killing someone should be the only applicable information. Let the actions speak the loudest, not the motive.

My thoughts on hate crime is simple- it's stupid. The idea of "hate crime" is retarded. Why isn't it just "crime"? Law should be indiscriminate, and charging people with "hate crime" clearly violates that virtue.

I see no evidence that this is a hate crime. INH hasn't really responded to all the people asking why she's sure that it's a hate crime. She just insists it is.

At 4/24/2011 4:51:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:Nearly killing someone should be the only applicable information. Let the actions speak the loudest, not the motive.

At 4/24/2011 5:45:38 PM, Aaronroy wrote:My thoughts on hate crime is simple- it's stupid. The idea of "hate crime" is retarded. Why isn't it just "crime"? Law should be indiscriminate, and charging people with "hate crime" clearly violates that virtue.

If you advocate disregarding motive when applying justice, you are essentially saying that killing in self defense is on a level with premeditated murder.

That is, even if someone who was about to attempt suicide gets attacked, even if their actual motive for fighting back was "Attacking me? What an a**hole, I wanna do it myself" rather than getting out of there alive, the self-defense provision still protects them, because it isn't about motive.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

If you advocate disregarding motive when applying justice, you are essentially saying that killing in self defense is on a level with premeditated murder.

Not true. It's not the fact that they wanted to defend themselves that is relevant, but the fact that they were defending themselves-- that the person killed was aggressing at the time of their death.

Disagree. Self-defense is the motive itself. For someone to get off on self-defense they need to prove that they believed they were in significant danger, not that the other person was actually at fault.

That is, even if someone who was about to attempt suicide gets attacked, even if their actual motive for fighting back was "Attacking me? What an a**hole, I wanna do it myself" rather than getting out of there alive, the self-defense provision still protects them, because it isn't about motive.

If you advocate disregarding motive when applying justice, you are essentially saying that killing in self defense is on a level with premeditated murder.

Not true. It's not the fact that they wanted to defend themselves that is relevant, but the fact that they were defending themselves-- that the person killed was aggressing at the time of their death.

Disagree. Self-defense is the motive itself. For someone to get off on self-defense they need to prove that they believed they were in significant danger, not that the other person was actually at fault.

They need to prove a reasonable belief (for which the facts are generally sufficient, and the fact that there was aggression generally necessary)-- belief and motive are however two different things.

That is, even if someone who was about to attempt suicide gets attacked, even if their actual motive for fighting back was "Attacking me? What an a**hole, I wanna do it myself" rather than getting out of there alive, the self-defense provision still protects them, because it isn't about motive.

There is a clear distinction between retaliation and self defense.

The difference is whether the two happen at the same time and is thus irrelevant here.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.